Apr 5, 2016 | News
Thailand must immediately revoke National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order 13/2016 which confers sweeping powers on the Royal Thai Armed Forces in contravention of human rights and the rule of law, said today the ICJ and other human rights groups.
On 29 March 2016, pursuant to Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, General Prayuth Chan-o-cha, Head of the NCPO, issued Order 13/2016 which provides appointed “Prevention and Suppression Officers” and their assistants, drawn from the commissioned ranks of the Armed Forces, including the paramilitary Ranger Volunteers, with wide-ranging powers to prevent and suppress 27 categories of crimes including against public peace, liberty and reputation, immigration, human trafficking, narcotics, and weapons.
“The implementation of Order 13/2016 will almost certainly lead to violations of Thailand’s international human rights obligations and the rule of law and must be revoked immediately,” said Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“We have observed a steady erosion of human rights protections in Thailand since the military coup of 22 May 2014 and this Order signifies another, jarring, movement in the same direction,” he added.
The Order raises numerous human rights concerns say the ICJ, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International (AI), Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), and Fortify Rights (FR). These concerns include:
1. Grants a form of immunity from prosecution to those acting under the Order, leading to impunity contrary to the principle of accountability required by the rule of law.
“Instead of paving the way for a return to democratic rule, the Thai junta has broadened its powers to do almost anything it wants, including committing abuses with total impunity,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “Repression becomes a daily reality as Thailand descends further into military dictatorship.”
2. Actions taken under the Order are not subject to judicial review, contrary to the rights to effective remedy, to judicial control of deprivation of liberty, and to a fair trial, as for instance recognized under Articles 2, 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“The Order is yet another example of the pernicious removal of powers from the judicial system to review the military’s actions, to the detriment of rights protection and the rule of law,” said Champa Patel, Interim Director, South East Asia and Pacific Regional Office, Amnesty International.
3. Provides untrained military officials with broadly and ambiguously worded powers of law enforcement likely to lead to abuse, inconsistent with human rights standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
“The Order provides law enforcement powers to military officials who do not have law enforcement experience or protocols to summon, search, and arrest persons,” said Evelyn Balais-Serrano, the Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.
“This makes the absence of judicial oversight all the more concerning. The fact that this may lead to an abuse of power and the disproportionate use of force by military officials in violation of international laws and standards including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials is very worrying. There is a real risk the Order may be used to restrict the legitimate rights of people such as the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association,” she added.
4. Authorizes the deprivation of liberty of persons for up to seven days in unrecognized places of detention, without judicial oversight, which increases the risk of further human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearance.
“Despite its pretense to suppress criminal activities, this Order is likely to result in the commission of very serious crimes that are prohibited under human rights instruments that Thailand has either signed or ratified,” said FIDH President Karim Lahidji.
5. In practice, the Order is open to abuse to repress and silence those perceived as dissenters, including human rights defenders, in violation of international human rights law and standards.
“This Order stands to fuel the fire of retaliation against human rights defenders in Thailand,” said Amy Smith, Executive Director of Fortify Rights. “Thailand has an obligation to protect human rights defenders, but this Order could easily be used to target and obstruct their legitimate work.”
Contact
Wilder Tayler, ICJ’s Secretary General, t: +41 (0) 229793800 ; e: wilder.tayler(a)icj.org
Thailand-NCPO Order-News-Press releases-2016-THA (full text, in PDF, Thai version)
Thailand-NCPO Order unof trsl-Advocacy-2016-ENG (unofficial translation of the Order, PDF)
Mar 15, 2016 | News
Today’s acquittal of the only person facing charges for the killing of lands rights activist Chai Bunthonglek, highlights the urgent need for the Thai Government to protect human rights defenders in the country, said the ICJ today.
In addition to Chai Bunthonglek, a member of the Southern Peasant Federation of Thailand (SPFT), three other SPFT activists have been killed since 2010: Montha Chukaew and Pranee Boonrat in 2012 and Somporn Pattanaphum in 2010.
No one has been prosecuted for these three killings, reportedly due to insufficient evidence obtained by the police.
“The result in this case underscores the pressing need for the Department of Special Investigations to investigate the pattern of killings of land rights activists in southern Thailand,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
Chai Bunthonglek was killed on 11 February 2015. All four SPFT activists killed since 2010 had been advocating for the land rights of poor farmers who are in a dispute with the Government and a palm oil company operated by Jiew Kang Jue Pattana Co. Ltd.
“Today’s acquittal means that no-one has been held accountable for the killing of Chai Bunthonglek, representing another failure to bring to justice those responsible for crimes against human rights defenders and, in particular, those trying to uphold social and economic rights in Thailand,” said Abbott.
“The ICJ calls on the Thai Government to ensure justice and effective remedies for human rights defenders.”
On 15 March, the Viangsra Provincial Court acquitted Santi Wanthong, who was accused of driving the motorcycle from which Chai Bunthonglek, 61-years-old, was shot six times and killed in front of his family in Klong Sai Pattana in Surat Thani Province.
Two other suspects initially arrested for the crime were not indicted.
The DSI has the power to assume jurisdiction over “special” criminal cases including complex cases that require special inquiry, crimes committed by organized criminal groups, and cases where the principal suspect is “an influential person.”
The trial court held today that prosecution witnesses could not properly identify the defendant, and that a cap and gun collected from his house could not be positively identified as belonging to the man who had been involved in attacking Chai Bunthonglek.
Chai Bunthonglek’s family intends to appeal the verdict, the ICJ has been told. They have 30 days to file an appeal.
Witnesses in the case, as well as members of SPFT, have expressed their fear of further attacks. Suraphon Songru, member of the Steering Group of the SPFT, told the ICJ: “the perpetrators – which the community believe may be linked to the local authorities in the area – are still out there, which means another killing could take place.”
The ICJ called on Thai authorities to ensure the safety of all witnesses and ensure the safety of all human rights defenders, including members of SPFT, in Surat Thani.
Background
Santi Wanthong was formally indicted on the following charges: murder of another person (section 288 of the Thai Criminal Code); jointly premeditated murder (section 289 of the Thai Criminal Code); possession of a firearm without a permit (section 371 of the Thai Criminal Code); and possession of ammunition for a firearm without a permit (sections 7, 8 and 72 of the Gun, Ammunition, Explosive Substance, Firework and Artificial Gun Weapon Act).
SPFT was formed in 2008 and campaigns for the right to agricultural land in the Khlong Sai Pattana and Permsub area, in Surat Thani Province and other areas in the region.
Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and had its review before the Committee of the ICESCR in June 2015, where the killings of land rights defenders was particularly noted. The Committee urged Thailand to “adopt all measures necessary to protect human rights activists, including those working to defend economic, social and cultural rights, from any and all acts of intimidation, harassment and killings and to ensure that perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice.” The obligation to protect the right to life and other rights of human rights defenders working on economic, social and cultural rights, and to take effective criminal proceedings in response to such crimes, is also an obligation of Thailand under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is recognized in numerous UN standards on protection of human rights defenders.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 94 470 1345 ; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-Chai case-News-2016-THA (full text in Thai, PDF)
Feb 9, 2016
The ICJ wrote to Thailand’s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) today further to the latest setback in the enforced disappearance case of Somchai Neelapaijit, who was reportedly abducted by police officers and forcibly disappeared in central Bangkok on 12 March 2004.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision of 29 December 2015 to acquit one police officer and exonerate four others of coercion and robbery, the ICJ wrote to the DSI to urge it to reinvigorate its investigation and provide access to an effective remedy and reparation for Somchai Neelapaijit’s family.
Reminding the DSI of its obligations under international human rights law, the ICJ’s letter drew attention to the fact that enforced disappearance is considered to be a continuing crime until the fate and whereabouts of a ‘disappeared’ person are disclosed or otherwise become known.
12 years have now passed since Somchai Neelapaijit (photo) was abducted in plain sight in the middle of Bangkok.
As the only open channel to justice, the ICJ’s letter underscored the significance of the DSI’s continuing investigation.
At a time when the Royal Thai Government is debating draft legislation that would ‘guarantee prompt, thorough, impartial investigation of any cases of torture and enforced disappearance’, now is the opportune moment to complement these efforts to comply with the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
Thailand’s obligations also include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which Thailand is a state party.
Enforced disappearance also amount a violation under both of these treaties, which also require that acts constituting enforced disappearance be criminalized and that persons responsibility be brought to justice.
Thailand-DSI Somchai-Advocacy-Open letters-2016-ENG (full text in PDF, English)
Thailand-DSI Somchai-Advocacy-Open letters-2016-THAI (full text in PDF, Thai)
Read also:
Somchai Neelapaijit verdict important test of Thailand’s treatment of cases of enforced disappearance
Jan 27, 2016
On 8 and 9 October 2015, the ICJ held a consultation meeting in Tunis on the topic of judicial accountability. The ICJ today is publishing a summary report of the discussions.
The focus of the meeting was on mechanisms and procedures for holding judges to account for involvement in violations of human rights, judicial corruption or similar judicial misconduct, in developing countries.
The Tunis meeting offered the opportunity for judges, researchers and other professionals with expertise in justice systems in a range of developing countries from Africa, South America and the MENA region, to exchange views and experiences on the topic.
Drawing from their professional experience,knowledge and personal opinion, the participants discussed types of accountability mechanisms, their efficiency, and the main challenges faced in pursuing judicial accountability and potential ways to overcome them in developing countries.
The Tunis consultation forms part of a larger ongoing project on judicial accountability.
The ICJ intends to publish in the coming months a report of further reflections on the particular challenges for judicial accountability in developing countries, as well as a more global Practitioners’ Guide on Judicial Accountability in June 2016.
These publications will draw on the Tunis consultation, the 2015 Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers (14-15 December 2015), as well as further research.
This report of the Tunis consultation offers a thematic summary of the discussions held over the course of the two days meeting, and also includes annexes with the list of participants, and questions for reflection, provided to the participants in advance of the meeting.
The ICJ is grateful for funding from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, without which the Tunis consultation and additional ICJ consultations, research and analysis on judicial accountability in developing countries would not have been possible.”
Universal-Tunis Consultation-Publications-Seminar and Conference Report-2016-ENG (full report in PDF)
Jan 2, 2016
Initially published in Spanish on 29 November 2015, the tenth book of the ICJ series of Practitioners Guides has now been translated into English.
It can be downloaded below:
Universal-PG Enforced Disappearance N10-Publications-Practitioners’ Guide-2016-ENG (English version in PDF)
Universal-PG Desaparizion forzada N10-Publications-Practitioners’ Guide-2015-SPA (Spanish version in PDF)
